From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [PATCH] change b_size to size_t Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20060223172925.GD27682@kvack.org> References: <1140470487.22756.12.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060222151216.GA22946@lst.de> <1140627510.22756.81.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060222165942.GA25167@lst.de> <20060223014004.GA900@frodo> <20060222175923.784ce5de.akpm@osdl.org> <1140712093.22756.106.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060223163204.GA27682@kvack.org> <1140715738.22756.125.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Nathan Scott , christoph , mcao@us.ibm.com, lkml , linux-fsdevel Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:36993 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932311AbWBWReZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:34:25 -0500 To: Badari Pulavarty Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1140715738.22756.125.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:28:58AM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > How about doing this ? Change b_state to u32 and change b_size > to "size_t". This way, we don't increase the overall size of > the structure on 64-bit machines. Isn't it ? I was thinking of that too, but that doesn't work with the bit operations on big endian machines (which require unsigned long). Oh well, I guess that even with adding an extra 8 bytes on x86-64 we're still at the 96 bytes, or 92 bytes if the atomic_t is put at the end of the struct. -ben -- "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the police are here and they've asked us to stop the party." Don't Email: .